Since there's only been one sided reporting by an agenda-driven source, here's an actual legal summary of the Jury Verdict in Murray Rojas' case:
On Friday, June 30, 2017, the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered its finding in the pending criminal case against horse trainer Murray Rojas.
The jury found that Ms. Rojas was not guilty of the core and heart of the government’s case, the six (6) counts of wire fraud and the one (1) count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud that were brought against her. The attorney for Ms. Rojas considers this decision a resounding victory for not only Rojas but also for all horsemen.
However, the jury did find Ms. Rojas guilty on the charges of misbranding animal drugs and a count of conspiracy to commit misbranding. Ms. Rojas' defense counsel stated that the jury verdict was a strong victory because the most troubling charges involving wire fraud are by statute very broad and all inclusive type charges that have been used successfully in the past. The misbranding charges are very specific and the elements of these charges were not proven during the trial.
The government asserted that Ms. Rojas committed the crime of misbranding (and, conspiracy to misbrand) by instructing licensed veterinarians to “administer†animal drugs to race horses (owned or trained by Rojas) on race day. The attorneys for Ms. Rojas state that this does not constitute the crime of misbranding (or conspiracy to commit same) because both the relevant statute relied upon, to wit, 21 U.S.C. 353(f)(1)(C), and the extant case law, applies only to pharmacists or others who sell or “dispense†drugs to others, as does not apply to veterinarians or trainers who administer drugs to their horses. Thus, the use of this statute was improper overreaching by the government.
Not only did the government fail to prove that Ms. Rojas personally dispensed any animal drugs, but it affirmatively introduced evidence that the licensed co-conspirator veterinarians (who were under extreme pressure to testify in a most favorable way for the government under plea deals) did not “dispense†any drugs in this case either. Never in the history of criminal law has the crime of misbranding been used to convict anyone under these circumstances because these circumstances do not fit within the elements necessary to establish such crime.
It appears to the defense that the government went to unprecedented and extraordinary lengths to invent a violation in order to prosecute this trainer. The defense for Ms. Rojas is convinced that Ms. Rojas will be vindicated upon appeal of this matter which they intend to file in the coming days.
